Spoiler: Off Topic Makes sense now. Probably was necessary. If not for the dog, then for themselves eventually. To interject as to why I questioned in the first place with a childhood story: As a kid there was a new neighbor - single female lawyer who lived a few houses down the street from us and had 3 very big and very loud/aggro dogs for protection. Dogs easily big enough to kill children if they wanted. Neighbor had probably put some people in jail so while the dogs would bark at the kids as we walked by - the neighborhood wasn't happy but understood her predicament and let it slide at first as they weren't doing anything per se. Soon after the dogs started getting loose and chasing/circling us kids (myself included two times, scared the crap out of me but they never actually attacked me) around the neighborhood a few times when we would walk home from school or play outside. Then one day a kid got tackled by one of the dogs soon and VERY luckily 2 neighborhood dads rushed over out of nowhere and kicked the dogs away before he got really injured and somehow dogs didn't attack the dads / actually ran off. Owner must have heard the commotion as she ran out soon after and profusely apologized. The day after the 3 dogs were then locked up much more securely inside, had muzzles on pretty much 24/7, and were never seen again by us outside.... I found out later that apparently many in the neighborhood saw/heard what happened several had told her that if the dogs hurt their or the neighborhood kids, they wouldn't hesitate to shoot the dogs and sue her for injury/death. Being a lawyer I'm pretty sure she doubly understood the situation she was in. However, in this entire story, no dogs were shot. But the owner was not as negligent.